Occasionally we will conduct Socratic Seminars in order to discuss reading material. These seminars are directed by students and are an integral part of the class. If you miss a seminar, you are responsible for finding an article on a related topic and completing a two-page response to that article.
Responses turned in more than a week after the missed seminar will not be accepted.
All Quiet on the Western Front preparation - October 11th
Essential Question: How can the Golden Rule apply to the grey areas?
- Stealing: Unless it's necessary to live, stealing violates the personal value of trustworthiness and it's not consistent with the Golden Rule. It's not something that everyone should do (violating the principle of universality) nor does it pass the test of disclosure. It's detrimental to the values of all stakeholders except perhaps the thief. The owner values his property. The public values a secure society. From this it is pretty clear that stealing is not an ethical thing to do.
- Cheating on a Test: Cheating on tests is frequently not effective because education is usually cumulative and a student who cheats will often have trouble when he or she advances to the next level of difficulty. In addition, cheating dishonors the personal values of trustworthiness (don't cheat; don't lie) and responsibility (do what you're supposed to do; do your best). It fails the tests of the Golden Rule, universality (society wouldn't work if everyone did it) and disclosure (cheating by its nature is secretive). It adversely impacts the stakeholders, e.g., the teacher who wants to use the test as an assessment of how well the class is doing and the other students who want an even field on which to compete.
- A decision to kill someone, unless it is in self-defense, is not a principled decision. It violates the personal values of caring and respect. It violates the Golden Rule and the rule of universality. No one wants to die and it would not be a good idea if everyone with a grudge is permitted to kill someone. Whatever value the killer might be satisfying, self-defense is the only excuse for killing. (War and executions by the state are other exceptions to this analysis, although those of us who oppose the death penalty or who are pacifists would disagree.
-
- A person who is a vegetarian for ethical reasons applies the personal values of respect and caring to animals. Most modern consumers eat animals that live a life of misery on a factory farm and are then brutally killed. Consuming an animal violates the personal values of caring and respect toward the animals. The concerned vegetarian believes that any benefit derived from having animals available as a food source is not sufficient to justify the sacrifice of these personal values. Most non-vegetarians rely on mankind's tradition of eating meat and decide that the life and death of an animal are of such little importance that they do not trigger an ethical issue at all. (Increasingly, a middle course is available. People can purchase meat taken from animals that are humanely raised and killed. Usually this is available at health food stores and costs more than the meat raised on a factory farm.)